Ukrainian newspaper European Pravda characterised the “quarrel at the highest level” as a diplomatic failure, but added that it was “not yet a catastrophe”.

Some Ukrainians I have spoken to since the fractious encounter, during which Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky was repeatedly hectored by US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance, have indeed characterised it as disastrous for the country. But for others, the incident has been calmly accepted as the new reality in US-Ukraine relations.

There have been some questions directed at Zelensky — did he allow himself to be baited into an argument that could have real consequences? Should he have remained silent? But for the most part, the treatment of Ukraine’s president by Trump and Vance has unintentionally unified the war-weary Ukrainian people.

As one friend who has been displaced by war from the now-occupied Ukrainian city of Nova Kakhovka told me, there has not been this level of mobilisation and patriotism in three years.

This unity is seen in the response across Ukraine’s political divide. Petro Poroshenko, an often outspoken opponent of Zelensky and leader of the opposition party European Solidarity, said on Saturday that, to the surprise of many, he would not criticise Zelensky’s performance at the White House. “The country does not need criticism, the country needs unity,” he said in a video posted on X.

Anecdotally, even those Ukrainians who did not vote for Zelensky have told me that the events in the Oval Office made them feel more supportive of Zelensky. However, a sense of realism is sinking in over the shifting stance of the US administration.

Trump’s stated trust in Vladimir Putin and his conciliatory comments over Russian aggression, including a refusal to acknowledge Russian war crimes, have, for many Ukrainians, set low expectations that the White House can help achieve a quick and lasting peace. Yet, as Inna Sovsun of the opposition party Holos noted, “It was difficult to watch a president who’s been a victim of Russian aggression being attacked by the leader of the free world.”

Friday’s meeting between the US and Ukrainian leaders followed weeks of increasingly harsh Trump rhetoric toward Zelensky. Since being inaugurated on 20 January, Trump has called the Ukrainian leader a “dictator without elections,” claiming incorrectly that Zelensky had 4% approval ratings. He also indicated that the Russian invasion in February 2022 was Ukraine’s fault.

Such comments had already made Ukrainians rally around Zelensky, who now has a healthy 63% approval rating, according to the latest polls.

The ugly scenes in the Oval Office could see a further rallying around Zelensky, especially if he can successfully characterise his role in the dispute as that of defender of his people. Doing so would tap into growing popular resentment over the new US administration’s apparent unwillingness to acknowledge Russian war crimes.

In the days leading up to the Zelensky-Trump meeting, the US voted with Russia against a United Nations resolution condemning Russian aggression and opposed the wording of a draft G7 statement marking the third anniversary of the war, which depicted Russia as the aggressor.

The angry exchanges in the Oval Office seemed to have been sparked by Zelensky’s objection to Trump’s assertion that Russian President Vladimir Putin is a man of his word. That refusal to call out the man who faces an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court angers Ukrainians who have suffered Russian aggression for three years. To hammer that point home, Zelensky showed Trump and others in the Oval Office photos of Ukrainian prisoners of war returning home from Russian captivity tortured and abused.

As Ukrainian human rights lawyer and Nobel Prize winner Oleksandra Matviichuk noted in a speech she gave on 17 February, a poll taken early on in the war revealed that 65% of Ukrainians feared that there would be impunity for Russian crimes committed in Ukraine. Three years of conflict will have only hardened that sentiment, and yet the US under Trump’s leadership looks increasingly willing to let Putin off the hook.

A large section of the Ukrainian media, critics and supporters of Zelensky alike, have since Friday portrayed the president as a defender of both his nation and the truth who was forced into the difficult position of having to set the record straight and challenge untrue statements in real time, and in front of the seemingly antagonistic leader of the world’s largest economy, whose support has been crucial in Ukraine’s attempt to repel the invading Russian army.

To some, keeping silent would have been tantamount to capitulation, but others have questioned Zelensky’s approach. While still maintaining that Zelensky’s key message was correct, some Ukrainians have suggested that his emotional tone in the Oval Office was not constructive. Opposition lawmaker Oleskiy Goncharenko suggested in an interview with CNN that Zelensky should have been more “diplomatic” and more “calm” given that the stakes were so high.

Meanwhile, there were also those who questioned the decision to hold such an important conversation in front of the press, especially without the use of professional translators who potentially could have tamped down the rhetoric and slowed the pace of the exchange. Thus, as Tymofiy Mylovanov, an adviser to the office of the president and head of the Kyiv School of Economics put it, some things could “have been lost in translation”.

So where does the Oval Office dispute leave both Zelensky and US-Ukrainian relations? In the aftermath of the dispute, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who has been a staunch supporter of Ukraine, suggested that Zelensky should resign, the implications being that his relationship with Trump was so broken that his presence is now counterproductive for Ukraine’s priorities.

It is a line that hasn’t gone down well in Ukraine. Kira Rudyk, the leader of opposition party Holos, retorted that it was up to the Ukrainian people alone to decide on their leadership and future.

Moreover, to many Ukrainians the barrier to harmonious Ukraine-US relations is not Zelensky, but Trump. Mustafa Nayyem, who served in Zelensky’s government, summed up the view of many Ukrainians by claiming in a social media post that the Trump administration “does not just dislike Ukraine. They despise us.” The “contempt is deeper than indifference, and more dangerous than outright hostility,” he added in the Friday post.

Serhii Sternenko, a Ukrainian activist lawyer and blogger, described the Oval Office spat as an intentional provocation on behalf of Trump to discredit Ukraine as an unreliable partner in the peace negotiations.

Sternenko is not alone in his assessment. Journalist and blogger Vitaly Portnikov argued that the spat was the result of Trump’s unrealistic promise of ending the war quickly being confronted with the reality that perhaps Russia does not want to make any concessions. The thinking here is Putin has shown no indication that he will bend on his war goals, so for Trump, framing Zelensky as “not ready for peace” allows the US president to walk away from his campaign promise without accepting defeat.

Beyond the headlines and initial reactions from Ukrainian politicians, journalists and civilians, there is also another sentiment that is emerging: resignation to the new reality. Most Ukrainians want an end to war, but in a way that preserves their sovereignty and guarantees future security. Until recently, that was shared by the occupants of the White House. It is becoming increasingly clear to many Ukrainians that the US will play a different role in the war in Ukraine under Trump, meaning Ukraine will increasingly look to European leaders as primary partners.

Perhaps Goncharenko, the opposition member of Ukraine’s Parliament, best summed up the consequences of the Oval Office spat: “It was not Ukraine, it was not the United States who won … it was Putin.”